I recently read an article bemoaning the definition of the Role Playing Game. It once again was trying to defend the name against those who seem not to get it or that have no history with the genre. So, in my humble method I am going to suggest a new term as well as a definition that we can carve in stone.

First, the history part. role-playing games have been around since the first kids decided to be cowboys and indians, or caveman and sabretooths, or whatever. The minute you decide to act and react as if you are something you are not based on only your knowledge of that thing, you are role-playing. Ever seen a kid be a bear or a cat? How about an adult pretend to be someone they are not? This is a generic thing, honed to perfection by D&D, Renaissance Faires, LARPers, SCAers, and video game players. You are not pretending to be a specific person but rather playing the role of an archetype based on your knowledge and opinions. The actual character is lifeless and empty without you in it, you have to take on the entirety of the role for it to work.

In video games, this translates to character creation and statistics that change over the course of gameplay. As you make decisions, those decisions are factored in to how the character you are playing is treated and often what they can and cannot do. Kill an entire town, and the next town will not open it's doors and welcome you in, save the puppies and all of a sudden you get discounts when shopping. For the sake of gameplay, there is always a disconnect at some point since you cannot go 'full evil' and join the oppressors and no amount of do-gooding will get the masses to rise up and save you from having that last boss battle. This is not a fault of the RPG but of the desires we as humans have for a good story, and the desires of the developers to cater to our whims as precocious as we can be.

Now, on to the counterargument that I saw that got my hackles up. 'Well, then, since I am playing as Duke NukeEm it is also an RPG! I'M not him, I am just PLAYING HIS ROLE!'.

I suggest we coin the term CPG for Character Playing Game. In this instance, you are not assuming the whole role, but rather just acting out the persona of the character. Instead of having to fill all the nooks and crannies of this alter ego you are given an automaton that is already well defined, and you are required to motivate it. A lot less work, a lot less headache for the programmers, and you still get the vicarious thrill of being 'other' for a bit. The downside, of course, is that this other may say/do/be things that do not jibe with your desires. As hard as you try, Mr. NukeEm will never accept feminism and equality. You won't even be given those options as it would break the character as he is written. At any given 'choice' you are told options that the character would choose rather than options that anybody would choose. Makes the game more linear and easier to guide, but also takes away the depth that roleplayers have come to expect.

Role Playing is as complicated or as simple as you make it. You decide how much effort you will put into the character, you decide how much realism or historical fact you want to apply, and you decide all the important decisions based on your personal opinions.

Character Playing is a simplified version of role playing, designed to give you limited control of a pre-defined character so as to experience some of the same alter ego gratification as an RPG without needing to spend a lot of time working out the details. You are given a lot of the detail up front in exchange for losing the ability to personalize and empathize on a deeper level with the character.

So, next time someone tries to argue that Mario is roleplaying, explain to them that it is character, not role. Oh, and let them know that my princess turned out to be in the first castle all along, it was my desire for closure that kept me going thus missing the true meaning of Super Mario Brothers.